TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (3) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The petitioner Is a dealer In paddy and rice. For the year 1961-62 he was assessed to sales tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, on a net turnover of Rs. 2,780.00, but subsequently the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Vijayawada, on a scrutiny of the petitioner's books of account revised the assessment and levied an additional tax on the basis of an additional turnover of Rs. 38,920.00. Against the said order dated 4th June, 1964, which was stated to have been received by the petitioner on 26th August, 1964, he preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Guntur, on 27th January, 1965, which was received In the office of the Assistant Commissioner on 1st February, 1965. As the appeal was fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings were thereafter started for recovery of the tax. In addition to this the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, initiated penalty proceedings which were communicated to the petitioner on 8th October, 1966. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 19 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the original order of assessment passed by the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), on various grounds praying for stay of recovery of the tax and also penalty and requested further that the appeal filed by him against the order of penalty should be stayed pending disposal of the writ petition, as the val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er words, the contention is that the appellate authority having rejected the appeal in limine on the ground that there is no sufficient cause to excuse the delay in the presentation of the appeal, there was no determination of the tax on merits and that the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 21 are not attracted. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., referred to above. The facts out of which the said ruling arose are as follows: The Commercial Tax Officer passed an order of assessment against which an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority under section 19 of the Act and along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application before the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected in limine on the ground that the tax was not paid within the prescribed time. But in the present case the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time stands on a different footing. Sri Venkatapaiah Sastry on behalf of the respondent invited our attention to the ruling in Mela Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Incometax [1956] 29 I.T.R. 607. , wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that an order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that there was no sufficient reason for excusing delay under section 30(2) of the Income-tax Act and rejecting the appeal as time-barred is an order passed under section 31 and that an appeal lies from that order to the Appellate Tribunal. It makes no difference whether the o....